Should the social sciences actually be called 'sciences'?

[Trakar]

Rule of thumb: if a subject contains the word science, it is as close to science as a country whose name contains the word democratic is close to democracy.

Weak analogy at best and not generally parallel to the sciences

(People's Democratic Republic of Algeria, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste, Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Federal Democratic Republic of Nepal, Democratic Republic of São Tomé and Príncipe, Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka -> more)

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I think it was Massimo Pigliucci who said that the 'hard sciences' are misnamed. They're actually the 'easy sciences' - very reproduceable, very few variables.

For some reason, this has led to many experts in those fields forgetting they have mastered the lowest hanging fruit, and looking down their nose at their peers who are addressing much more complex subjects.

I love this. I shall have to remember it.

Being in the field of nursing science, it's insulting to be told your field isn't a real science. The founder of modern nursing, Florence Nightingale, was one of the leading scientists of her time.

Florence Nightingale, scientist, mathematician and, uh… nurse

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I think it is wrong to pin the science label on disciplines based on their results. It should be the methods they use that determine if they are sciences. ...
The reason why crackpot theories of physics are not science is likewise because they do not use the scientific methods, not because of their results.

Exactly!

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

You're redefining terms. There is certainly a lack of experimentation in psychology. Animal experiments are only of very limited practical value; while experiments on humans are so limited and restricted as to be of minimal usefulness compared to the experimentation that goes on in other fields. Saying that there is no lack of experimentation because there is some minimal level of experimentation is ridiculous semantic quibbling.

Luchog, I have a lot of respect for you, but this is just so far off base, I don't know what to say.

Have you not heard of the gold standard in evidence based medicine: randomized placebo (and no treatment arm) controlled trials? They are not limited to medicine.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

... Medical research is science. Medical practice is not science,

It may or may not include direct research, but to say the practice is not science is to limit science only to research. I don't define a scientific field as limited to research.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Yep. I think Medicine is usually considered either a "science-allied profession", or "technology". Engineering, nursing - even things like architecture or city planning - are other examples.

Nursing and medicine use both science and technology. But by that measure, research uses technology. Does that make it only allied to science?

I get it that technology is not science. Technology provides the tools for science. It may also provide the tools for building infrastructure, sure. But because a doctor or nurse uses technology doesn't make the field of nursing and medicine not scientific fields.

I think you are trying too hard to separate the use of knowledge from the acquisition of knowledge.

Bottom line: nursing is a scientific field along with some of the other fields being discussed in this thread.

 

[Venom]

'social science' as a misnomer doesn't bother me too much, so long as people recognize it as such.

 

[luchog]

It may or may not include direct research, but to say the practice is not science is to limit science only to research. I don't define a scientific field as limited to research.

I think the idea was that medical research is science; but medical practice equates to technology. It's the difference between physics and engineering.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

'social science' as a misnomer doesn't bother me too much, so long as people recognize it as such.

You go by a name that includes "Clovis" and you don't think sociology can be a scientific field?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I think the idea was that medical research is science; but medical practice equates to technology. It's the difference between physics and engineering.

But that is not true.

Medical practice is based on the scientific field of medicine. Scientific research uses technology. If using technology makes something not a science, how do you categorize scientific research that uses technology?

And is a medical researcher not researching the science of medicine?

 

[Meed]

It may or may not include direct research, but to say the practice is not science is to limit science only to research. I don't define a scientific field as limited to research.

Yeah you could call it applied science.

 

[luchog]

But that is not true.

Medical practice is based on the scientific field of medicine. Scientific research uses technology. If using technology makes something not a science, how do you categorize scientific research that uses technology?

And is a medical researcher not researching the science of medicine?

You're conflating more things than I want to try enumerating. Science is the practice of investigation, engineering is the practice of applying the principles learned from scientific investigation. Technology is simply the product of engineering used to create tools. Medical research is the science part, medical practice is the engineering part.

 

[Trakar]

You're conflating more things than I want to try enumerating. Science is the practice of investigation, engineering is the practice of applying the principles learned from scientific investigation. Technology is simply the product of engineering used to create tools. Medical research is the science part, medical practice is the engineering part.

What would you consider "diagnosis," which is a fundamental and essential element of medical practice?

 

[blutoski]

What would you consider "diagnosis," which is a fundamental and essential element of medical practice?

It's subject matter. Researching diagnostic criteria would be medical science, performing a diagnosis would be applied science.

 

[Trakar]

It's subject matter. Researching diagnostic criteria would be medical science, performing a diagnosis would be applied science.

I would largely agree with this, however, as patients and diseases are not check-box components of diagnosis, performing a diagnosis often entails the use of a large amount of scientific process (to include testing and result analysis) to derive an accurate/useful causation and treatment.

 

[blutoski]

I would largely agree with this, however, as patients and diseases are not check-box components of diagnosis

I'm pretty sure they are... with the qualifier that the criteria aren't binary but rather probably continuua. The MD would be attempting to home in on good values for those criteria, much of which would be judgement calls.

performing a diagnosis often entails the use of a large amount of scientific process (to include testing and result analysis) to derive an accurate/useful causation and treatment.

? I'm pretty sure no. At least not any more than a construction engineer measuring the slope of the jobsite is scientific. I think that would be playing pretty fast and loose with the term 'scientific' if we mean 'troubleshooting'. If diagnostic tests count, then everybody's a scientist. Who hasn't jiggled the handle on a toilet to stop it from running?

 

[macdoc]

This is exactly the slippery slope...let's not muddy science in the public's mind any more than it is already distorted

 

[Trakar]

I'm pretty sure they are... with the qualifier that the criteria aren't binary but rather probably continuua. The MD would be attempting to home in on good values for those criteria, much of which would be judgement calls.

This is only true with diagnosticians that probably shouldn't be diagnosing real patients.

? I'm pretty sure no. At least not any more than a construction engineer measuring the slope of the jobsite is scientific. I think that would be playing pretty fast and loose with the term 'scientific' if we mean 'troubleshooting'. If diagnostic tests count, then everybody's a scientist. Who hasn't jiggled the handle on a toilet to stop it from running?

Comparing medical practice and diagnosis to jiggling a toilet handle probably says more about the nature of your argument than any counter statement I could make.

 

[blutoski]

This is only true with diagnosticians that probably shouldn't be diagnosing real patients.

? not sure what you mean... I would say the opposite... if a diagnosis is not following a vetted procedure, it sounds like malpractice.

Or do you mean 'judgement calls' ? It sounds like you're not familiar with diagnosis. Criteria are usually on a continuum. That an indication is 'severe' or 'for an extended time period' are very situation dependent. This is the core complaint of many critics of medicine - that there is so much judgement in diagnoses, and so few indications are independently testable.

Comparing medical practice and diagnosis to jiggling a toilet handle probably says more about the nature of your argument than any counter statement I could make.

I disagree. I was pointing out that your suggestion that troubleshooting = science because there are tests, is absurd.

Technically I've done science. My wife has done both - we met while we were doing our masters' in research medicine. Now that she's practicing as an MD, she's pretty clear she's not doing 'science' anymore. At least not without such a radical redefinition of science that it could include any applied technology like car mechanics or carpentry.

 

[Trakar]

? not sure what you mean...

the proper step in such a situation is to ask for a better explanation, not to try and argue against things I did not say.

Here is a basic description that may help the confusions you seem to be experiencing.

http://www.haspi.org/curriculum-lib...PLETE/01a Scientific Process in Diagnosis.pdf

...While the scientific method is often presented as a linear step-by-step process, it is actually much more complex requiring repeated re-evaluation and adjustments as experiments are being performed. On the other hand, engineering is the creation of new things, often based on the results of scientific experimentation. Engineers use a more creative engineering design process. The flow charts below outline the process used in
science and engineering...

...The scientific process in healthcare is most obviously seen in medical diagnosis. The medical diagnosis is an example of science in action. A patient comes to a healthcare professional with a chief complaint, or health concern, which provides the question. The healthcare professional then analyzes the patient’s symptoms, medical history, and condition to determine a diagnosis. The initial diagnosis is considered a hypothesis. To experiment and determine whether the initial diagnosis is correct, the healthcare professional may order additional diagnostic tests or start treatment based on the initial diagnosis. This is considered the experiment. The diagnostic test results, or the treatment results, are then analyzed to confirm or negate the diagnosis. If the initial diagnosis was correct, treatment will be started or continued. If it was incorrect, additional tests or a different treatment will be started. This process repeats until the correct diagnosis for the patient has been determined...

Science and engineering do have certain crossover similarities, but medical practice, particularly diagnosis, is a scientific process, not the same as engineering design.